|
Note: Hey, this one is a little different! WJI's "SCOW docket" pieces generally include decisions, dissents and concurrences all in one post. This time, with this case, we are doing it in three: First we shortcutted the decision, then the dissent, and now the concurrences. Why? Because this package of writings, and the strange U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to it, are extremely important to the state and country. Besides that, the SCOW decisions are unusually long – 142 pages, all in, not counting the cover sheets. And instead of allowing each writing justice 10 paragraphs, we are giving each 15. Other than that, the rules remain the same. We've removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Concurrence: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (49 pages), joined by Justices Patience D. Roggensack and Annette K. Ziegler Concurrence: Justice Brian Hagedorn (4 pages) Dissent: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (39 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca F. Dallet (See part 2) Majority opinion: Ziegler (50 pages), joined by Grassl Bradley, Hagedorn, and Roggensack (See part 1)  Grassl Bradley Grassl Bradley's concurrence This redistricting cycle proceeded in a manner heavily focused on color, supposedly for remedial purposes, but accomplishing nothing but racial animosity as showcased by the dissent's race-baiting rhetoric and condescension toward people of color. The United States Supreme Court rejected Homer Plessy's argument that racial segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment, to its everlasting shame. Plessy exists in our nation's history as a stain, dishonoring America's quest for equality under the law for all, which began with the founding. At times, the United States has strayed from this sacred principle, often on the basis of sham social science of the day promoting the repugnant notion that people of different races would be better off if the law distinguished between them. Allowing social science to infect constitutional analysis inevitably "result[s] in grave abuses of individual rights and liberty." *** Judges can certainly consider whether a particular government action has had a disparate impact on minorities – our color-blind Constitution does not countenance ignoring incidents of discrimination. Under a color-blind approach, however, this court may not order a remedy that purports to address racial discrimination by discriminating on the basis of race. The Constitution prohibits this court from sorting people on the basis of their race. *** Imposing a race-based redistricting plan, without strong evidence of necessity, endorses the stereotype that people of the same race must think alike and must think differently than people of other races. Governor Evers' plan, adopted by this court on March 3, imposed "distinctions . . . based upon race and color alone," which is "the epitome of that arbitrariness and capriciousness constitutionally impermissive under our system of government." *** The inconclusive pseudo-science presented to this court fell far short of justifying race-based redistricting, as the majority opinion thoroughly explains. It amounted to little more than selectively-cited election data, which appears to have been researched only after-the-fact. That is to say, mapmakers seem to have used racial stereotypes, not legitimate social science, to heuristically draw maps that segregated people based on race. No such "shortcuts" are allowed for proponents of race-based redistricting as a remedy for past discrimination. The dissent's ambitious attempt to paint Milwaukee County as the Jim Crow-era South reflects "an effort to cast out Satan by Beelzebub." The dissent would remedy what it perceives as racial disparities by literally "draw[ing] lines between the white and the black" with no apparent recognition that doing so replaces one devil with another. *** The people have a "right to know" what happened this redistricting cycle. Unfortunately, media coverage on this case, like on so many others, has been skewed by partisan pundits disappointed in the "results." One media outlet went so far as to run a subheadline attacking the motives of the nation's highest court: "The justices [of the United States Supreme Court] are concerned that Wisconsin's legislative maps may give too much political power to Black people." Ian Millhiser, Black Voters Suffer Another Significant Loss in the Supreme Court, Vox (Mar. 23, 2022) https://www.vox.com/2022/3/23/22993107/supreme-court-wisconsinrace-gerrymander-voting-rights-act-legislature-electionscommission. Worse still, while accusing the justices of indulging an "inflammatory assumption," specifically, "[t]hat legislative maps with fewer Black-majority districts are often preferred to those that give more power to Black voters," the author made an inflammatory assumption of his own, seemingly designed to foster racial tension. See id.; see also Mark Joseph Stern, The Supreme Court's Astonishing, Inexplicable Blow to the Voting Rights Act in Wisconsin, Slate (Mar. 23, 2022), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/supreme-court-voting-rights-shredder-wisconsin.html.  *** Governor Evers' oddly shaped districts are numerous — and many of the odd shapes in his plan are analogous to the PMC's (People's Maps Commission). For example, Governor Evers redrew Senate District 4, currently represented by Sen. Taylor, to extend into Waukesha and Ozaukee Counties. The result was a substantial decrease in BVAP (Black voting-age population). Under his plan, Assembly District 11 would extend to Mequon. In critiquing a similar feature of the PMC's map, Rep. LaKeshia Myers rhetorically asked, "[w]hy? That's going to cross the county line. Doesn't make sense. Doesn't make sense at all. . . . That's not going to stick when it comes to people's interest. That's not going to stick when it comes to thinking you're going to elect people that look like me." Without any VRA (Voting Rights Act)-grounded justification, Governor Evers violated Article IV, Section 4 the Wisconsin Construction, which requires assembly districts "to be bounded by county, . . . town, or ward lines[.]"  Governor Evers' plan also would have harmed the Black community by forcing it to bear the brunt of disruption stemming from redistricting. While demonstrating high overall core retention, Governor Evers concentrated major changes in Milwaukee County, proposing what the Legislature fairly labelled a "most-change Milwaukee" map. According to the Legislature, Governor Evers' plan would have retained merely 72.6% of Milwaukee-area voters in their current district. In accordance with the principles expounded in our November 30 opinion, this court rightly rejects a "most-change Milwaukee," as the Legislature did with a bipartisan vote months ago. "State authorities" should not "localize the burdens of race reassignment" on a particular community. It leaves "the impression of unfairness" when a discrete and insular minority "disproportionately bears the adverse consequences of a race-assignment policy." This redistricting cycle proceeded in a manner heavily focused on color, supposedly for remedial purposes, but accomplishing nothing but racial animosity as showcased by the dissent's race-baiting rhetoric and condescension toward people of color. - Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley In contrast to Governor Evers' plan, the Legislature's plan does not engage in the systematic and discriminatory dismantling of districts in Milwaukee. Governor Evers would sever Black voters' existing constituent-representative relationships and undermine existing voter coalitions, while largely preserving them for White voters. Whether maximizing majority Black voting districts would actually benefit the Black community remains highly suspect. Had it survived the scrutiny of the United States Supreme Court, Governor Evers' plan arguably would have limited Black communities' political power. Senator Lena Taylor wrote an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court explaining how Governor Evers' maps "dilute[] the voting strength of Black voters in Wisconsin." She continued, "the [Wisconsin] supreme court's conclusion – with no analysis whatsoever – that the Governor's map complies with the Voting Rights Act is clearly erroneous. ... It made no determination of whether the Governor's map – or any other – contains seven Assembly districts with an effective Black majority."
The Legislature has repeatedly told this court its maps are race neutral. No party presented any evidence to this court calling into question the Legislature's attorneys' compliance with their duty of candor, but the dissent nevertheless lodges the accusation. ***
0 Comments
 Karofsky Note: Hey, this one is a little different! WJI's "SCOW docket" pieces generally include decisions, dissents and concurrences all in one post. This time, with this case, we are doing it in three: First we shortcutted the decision, then the dissent, and next the concurrences. Why? Because this package of writings, and the strange U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to it, are extremely important to the state and country. Besides that, the SCOW decisions are unusually long – 142 pages, all in, not counting the cover sheets. And instead of allowing each writing justice 10 paragraphs, we are giving each 15. Other than that, the rules remain the same. We've removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Dissent: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (39 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca F. Dallet Concurrence: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (49 pages), joined by Justice Patience D. Roggensack and Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler Concurrence: Justice Brian Hagedorn (4 pages) Majority opinion: Ziegler (50 pages), joined by Grassl Bradley, Hagedorn, and Roggensack (See part 1) Karofsky begins her dissent with a bit of background on the "odyssey" that led to SCOW's original decision to select redistricting maps submitted by Gov. Tony Evers. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned it and sent it back to SCOW, which then selected maps submitted by the Legislature. We are careening over the waterfall because the Legislature's maps fare no better than the Governor's under the U.S. Supreme Court's rationale. If, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Governor's addition of a Milwaukee-area majority-minority district evinces a disqualifying consideration of race, then the Legislature's removal of a Milwaukee-area majority-minority district reveals an equally suspect, if not more egregious, sign of race-based line drawing. In addition, if a further-developed record is required to definitively determine whether the Governor's seventh majority Black district is required then a further-developed record is also required to definitively determine that the Legislature's removal of a majority-minority district does not violate federal law. The Court indicated that in a case like this where the court sits as the map-drawer in the first instance, the court, rather than the parties, are responsible for showing that the number of majority-minority districts required by the VRA (Voting Rights Act) constitutes the narrowly tailored remedy allowed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In choosing the Legislature's maps the majority repeats this court's reversible mistake by again failing to implement fact-finding procedures conducive to addressing the relevant issues under both the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause. *** Karofsky briefly traces Milwaukee's history of segregation and discrimination. The VRA's application in redistricting is designed to remedy precisely these kinds of historical wrongs – those that create current barriers to democratic participation. Instead of allowing the past unconstitutional practices of redlining and racially restrictive covenanting to continue limiting Black people's opportunity to participate in our democracy, the VRA establishes that it is a sufficiently compelling government interest to draw districts that counteract the historical racial gerrymander. We must, of course, also consider the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And in doing so, it is impossible to ignore the 180-degree turn from that clause's purpose to how it has been wielded in this case. Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment demands that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since Brown v. Board of Education, the Equal Protection Clause has been invoked to desegregate this country, protect the voting rights of its citizens, and fight discrimination in its many forms. More recently, the Equal Protection Clause has been turned on its head and used, not to fight against the constant pull of our collective historical failing toward the promise of a better future, but to bar our government's ability to remedy past mistakes. The majority opinion perfectly captures this reversal by relying on cases pontificating that "[r]acial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions," and that "[r]ace-based assignments . . . embody stereotypes that treat individuals as the product of their race[.]" This argument is nothing short of gaslighting, seemingly denying Milwaukee's history of purposeful racial segregation. It was unrelenting overt racial discrimination that balkanized Milwaukee into "competing racial factions" and reduced Black individuals to a "product of their race." The fault and responsibility to remedy this systemic segregation lies not with Milwaukee's residents but instead with the government and the society that perpetuated racial redlining and restrictive covenants. Those practices shaped Milwaukee and that history of discrimination cannot be undone by force of will alone. The Milwaukee area perfectly demonstrates why the VRA's race-conscious remedy is often needed. Segregation of minority communities does not happen accidentally. If this country were anywhere close to living up to the "goal of a political system in which race no longer matters," then maybe we could apply the promise of Equal Protection in a race-blind manner. But the overwhelming evidence shows that we have not lived up to that goal. As such, a race-blind and effects-blind application of the Equal Protection Clause has become a sword against progress wielded by majority groups who fear giving away too much of their accumulated power. I fervently hope it will regain its place as a shield against harmful discriminatory action. *** Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, an Equal Protection analysis began with whether "race was the predominant factor motivating the [map-drawer]'s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. That entails demonstrating that the [map-drawer] 'subordinated' other factors –compactness, respect for political subdivisions, partisan advantage, what have you – to 'racial considerations.'" Yet, the Court's opinion did not first analyze whether race was the "predominant factor" motivating this court's districting decisions. Instead, it appeared that the Court took this court's limited analysis regarding the VRA, meant only to ensure the least-change map did not violate that law, as evidence that race – not least change – predominated our choice of maps. Our March 3 opinion never professed as much. While the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion said it was unclear whether this court viewed itself or the Governor as the map-drawer, we plainly stated that the court itself was the map-drawer. ("As a map-drawer, we understand our duty is to determine whether there are 'good reasons' to believe the VRA requires a seven-district configuration.") *** Despite our clear declaration that "least change" predominated our choice of maps, and despite the purported purpose of "least change" as a neutral criterion to shed ourselves of the political baggage that would be inherent in party-drawn maps, the Court nonetheless transposed the Governor's motivations onto this court. We are left to conclude that the motivations of the party submitting the map are the relevant motivations we must analyze going forward. This court can no longer hide behind a "least change" gloss to ignore a party's ulterior motives. The U.S. Supreme Court left us with other unanswered questions:
In light of these uncertainties, and in order to avoid further reversible error, I believe we must implement one of the first three options set out above: (1) invite further briefing and fact finding on the unsettled VRA questions; (2) invite an expert or the parties to submit redrawn, race-neutral maps for the Milwaukee area; or (3) invite an expert or the parties to submit a whole new, reliably-race-neutral map. The majority opinion attempts to shift the blame by noting that the parties stipulated through their joint discovery plan that they did not anticipate discovery "beyond the exchange of maps, expert disclosures, and any documents or data that a party intends to rely upon or an expert has relied upon." But we had the authority, indeed the responsibility, to direct further discovery or examination of expert witnesses. This court's initial reliance on the joint discovery plan was guided by the court's "least change" directive, which failed to account for the full and definitive Equal Protection or VRA inquiry the U.S. Supreme Court now demands. This persistent imprudence in developing a record has now led us to a legally untenable outcome at odds with the Court's directive. The Equal Protection and VRA claims usually litigated after the implementation of a remedial map must now be fully adjudicated as part of this decision – an impossible task on this record. *** The Legislature's maps fail for two reasons: first, we are not to act as a gubernatorial veto override body; and second, the Legislature's maps show evidence of racially motivated packing and cracking that could violate both the Equal Protection Clause and the VRA. The Legislature's maps derive from a failed political process. In Wisconsin, the redistricting process follows the same process as the enactment of any law. Both houses of the legislature must pass a bill containing new maps, which is then presented to the governor who may approve or veto the bill, the latter of which the legislature may override with a supermajority vote. Here, the Legislature, having failed to override the gubernatorial veto, submitted the very same proposal to us. By now implementing that failed bill, this court judicially overrides the Governor's veto, thus nullifying the will of the Wisconsin voters who elected that governor into office. But our constitution provides only one avenue to override such a veto; no judicial override textually exists. Nor, historically, has this court ever exercised such a supreme power. By judicially enacting the very bill that failed the political process, a bare majority of this court, rather than a supermajority of the legislature, has taken the unprecedented step of removing the process of lawmaking from its constitutional confines and overriding a governor's veto ourselves. More recently, the Equal Protection Clause has been turned on its head and used, not to fight against the constant pull of our collective historical failing toward the promise of a better future, but to bar our government's ability to remedy past mistakes. - Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jill J. Karofsky In addition to being derived from a failed political process, the Legislature's maps show signs of violating the Equal Protection Clause. If, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained, the Governor's addition of a majority-minority district sufficed to show that race predominated its proposal, then equally, if not more, suspect is the Legislature's removal of a majority-minority district. Despite the majority opinion's assertions, the Legislature's maps do not appear to be race-neutral and calling the claim "indisputable" does not make it so. The Legislature's claim that it drew its maps without considering race, quite frankly, flies in the face of its transfiguration of Milwaukee's six current districts with a Black voting age population (BVAP) majority. In Milwaukee, the BVAP increased 5.5 percent while the White voting age population decreased 9.5 percent over the last decade. Those demographic changes make the Legislature's draw down of BVAP percentage in five out of six VRA districts – one by over 12 percent – with the remaining VRA district packed at 73.3 percent BVAP highly suspicious.
*** Self-serving professions of race-neutrality should also be ignored because the Legislature offered no alternative reasons for making decisions regarding Milwaukee's districts. The Legislature's "least change" pretext fails when it openly admits its Milwaukee-area changes substantially differed from its treatment of the rest of the state. Nor can the Legislature justify its unique redrawing of Milwaukee districts on a desire to keep municipalities whole; it split at least one relevant village, Brown Deer, by dividing its Black population between two districts. Respecting "communities of interest" also fails to justify the Legislature's actions because no party submitted evidence establishing such communities. That leaves the more nefarious partisan advantage reasoning – a reliable pretext for racial motivations. But a neutral judicial body cannot adopt a map on such a justification, especially now that the party's motives are imputed onto the court. The Legislature also has not, and could not, claim such a justification as this court barred consideration of partisanship in our redistricting process. As such, no judicially acceptable justification for the Legislature's Milwaukee-area redistricting decisions exists. *** This has been a profoundly disheartening odyssey. The unavoidable political nature of remedial redistricting plagued us every step of the way. Too rarely did this process present true questions of law – this court's only area of expertise. At every change in the tide, this court seemed to choose what it hoped to be a short-cut to streamline our voyage, only to find ourselves lost and unable to do our work as a non-partisan court of law. But the redistricting process is likely to stalemate and come before this court again in the future. And when it does, I hope that we have learned our lesson. I hope that we will permit a politically insulated federal court to manage the task. Federal courts are better able to conduct extensive factfinding through trial-style litigation, a task for which we proved ill equipped. Note: Hey, this one is a little different! WJI's "SCOW docket" pieces generally include decisions, dissents and concurrences all in one post. This time, with this case, we are doing it in three: First the decision, then the dissent, then the concurrences. Why? Because this package of writings, and the strange U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to it, are extremely important to the state and country. Besides that, the SCOW decisions are unusually long – 142 pages, all in, not counting the cover sheets. And instead of allowing each writing justice 10 paragraphs, we are giving each 15. Other than that, the rules remain the same. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 15 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: Billie Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission Majority opinion: Justice Annette K. Ziegler (50 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian Hagedorn, and Patience Roggensack Concurrence: Grassl Bradley (49 pages), joined by Roggensack and Ziegler Concurrence: Hagedorn (4 pages) Dissent: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (39 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca F. Dallet  Ziegler The upshot Upon review of the record, we conclude that insufficient evidence is presented to justify drawing state legislative districts on the basis of race. The maps proposed by the Governor, Senator Janet Bewley, Black Leaders Organizing for Communities ("BLOC"), and Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists ("CMS") are racially motivated and, under the Equal Protection Clause, they fail strict scrutiny. By contrast, the maps proposed by the Wisconsin Legislature are race neutral. The Legislature's maps comply with the Equal Protection Clause, along with all other applicable federal and state legal requirements. Further, the Legislature's maps exhibit minimal changes to the existing maps, in accordance with the least change approach we adopted in Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n. Therefore, we adopt the state senate and assembly maps proposed by the Legislature for the State of Wisconsin. Background In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature passed and the Governor signed state legislative and congressional maps after the 2010 census. Over the subsequent ten years, the population of Wisconsin changed; people moved away from some areas and people moved into others. These changes were recognized in the 2020 census, which identified a population increase in the state from 5,686,986 to 5,893,718. The Petitioners filed this original action in August 2021 to remedy alleged malapportionment in Wisconsin's state legislative and congressional maps. In September 2021, this court accepted the case, and in October 2021, the court directed the parties to file briefs addressing what factors the court should consider when selecting new maps. ... On November 30, 2021, the court issued a decision explaining the framework by which the court would select maps. The court identified that under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, "a State [must] make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as practicable...." The court explained that, in addition to satisfying all Equal Protection Clause requirements, the court must consider compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"). ... In its November 30 decision, the court adopted the "least change approach," whereby the court would select maps that "comport with relevant legal requirements" while "reflect[ing] the least change necessary." The court rejected the suggestion that the court consider partisan fairness and proportional representation of political parties when selecting maps. *** On March 3, 2022, the court issued a decision adopting the Governor's state legislative and congressional maps. The court reasoned that the Governor's maps included the least alterations to preexisting maps. In addition, the court said that the Governor's maps complied with the Equal Protection Clause, the VRA, and the Wisconsin Constitution. After the court issued its March 3 decision, the Petitioners and the Legislature sought certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court, asserting that the court's adoption of the Governor's state legislative maps constituted a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ... On March 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court reversed the court's decision to select the Governor's state legislative maps. The Supreme Court confirmed that, under the Equal Protection Clause, a state government cannot draw district maps on the basis of race unless the state satisfies strict scrutiny. However, the state must possess this evidence before it creates maps based on racial classifications. In the case before this court, the Supreme Court reasoned that, based on the filings and presentations made by the Governor, the Governor had failed to present a strong evidentiary basis for believing the VRA mandated the district lines he drew. Specifically, the Supreme Court identified that the Governor's primary explanation for his racially drawn maps was the fact that it was cartographically possible to draw them. According to the Supreme Court, "[s]trict scrutiny requires much more." Based on the record, the Governor's maps failed to satisfy this legal standard. ... The Supreme Court remanded the case to us for further proceedings. The Court explained that we could "choose from among...other submissions." Alternatively, the court could "take additional evidence if [we] prefer[ed] to reconsider the Governor's maps." It instructed, however, that "[a]ny new analysis...must comply with our equal protection jurisprudence." *** The Supreme Court has demanded that three specific preconditions be met before it can conclude that the creation of additional majority-minority districts may be necessary: "(1) the racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) the racial group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority vote[s] sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." These three requirements are called the "Gingles preconditions." ... The VRA requires an "intensely local appraisal" which "pars[es] . . . data at the district level" and evidences a lack of minority electoral opportunity, such that a race-based remedy is needed. ...The inquiry is emphatically not to create "the maximum number of majority-minority districts," regardless of the on-the-ground characteristics of the minority communities under consideration. ...  The guts
Here, examining the available record, we conclude that there is not a "strong basis in evidence" that the VRA requires the use of race to draw majority-black legislative districts. Specifically, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that here, black voters have their choice of candidate blocked by a cohesive and oppositional voting bloc. The Governor failed to present evidence that a race-based remedy was necessary under the VRA, but nonetheless drew districts on the basis of race to create seven majority-black districts. The Supreme Court recognized that the Governor "provided almost no other evidence or analysis supporting his claim that the VRA required the seven majority-black districts that he drew." The Supreme Court further noted that the Governor's "main explanation for drawing the seventh majority-black district was that there is now a sufficiently large and compact population of black residents to fill it apparently embracing just the sort of uncritical majority-minority district maximization that we have expressly rejected." This is clearly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as a race-based remedy cannot precede proof of a VRA violation. ... The Governor's maps were racially motivated and are thus subject to strict scrutiny. ... He produced no evidence of electoral history and no district-specific evidence demonstrating that the black communities he moved among districts would be denied the opportunity to effectively participate in democracy absent his proposed district lines. ... (Ziegler outlined reasons for rejecting maps submitted by Bewley, BLOC, and CMS. All, she said, failed to meet VRA requirements.) In contrast to the maps proposed by the Governor, Senator Bewley, BLOC, and CMS, the Legislature's proposed maps are indisputably race neutral. No party argued and no evidence was provided demonstrating that the Legislature's maps were, in fact, not race neutral. The Legislature affirmed multiple times that the maps proposed by the Governor and BLOC to create exactly 51% BVAP (Black voting-age population) districts were a "racial gerrymander," and by contrast, the Legislature utilized "race-neutral criteria" to draw districts in the Milwaukee area, as it did for all other citizens regardless of race in the remainder of the state. Unlike the other parties, the Legislature never asserted that the Gingles preconditions required the drawing of majority-black districts. To the contrary, the Legislature's expert stated correctly that "the electoral patterns detailed by [BLOC] raise serious doubts about whether the Gingles threshold standard is currently met." *** Only those maps that purposefully discriminate between individuals are subject to strict scrutiny. Maps come under strict scrutiny "not just when they contain express racial classifications, but also when, though race neutral on their face, they are motivated by a racial purpose or object." The standard to demonstrate racial motivations through circumstantial evidence alone is high and rarely met. The map must be "so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate[e] ... voters on the basis of race." *** No such evidence of discriminatory intent has been provided, and, with the presumption of good faith in mind, we cannot conclude that the Legislature's maps are so highly irregular that they are "unexplainable on grounds other than race." Unlike the Governor and BLOC, who carefully calibrated BVAP in their districts, the BVAP in the Legislature's districts varies depending on the unique geography and community characteristics of those districts. BVAP in the Legislature's districts varies from 45.8% to 71.5%. In so doing, the Legislature's maps perform very well in race-neutral criteria. Out of the plans proposed, the Legislature's maps have low population deviation and have a low number of local government splits, including in the Milwaukee-area districts. In addition, the Legislature's maps include few incumbency pairings, and they move few voters into new senate districts with different election cycles. Those characteristics are seen in the Milwaukee-area districts, as they are throughout the state. Further, the districts with high BVAP are compact and do not have "highly irregular" features common to racial gerrymanders. ... When drawing districts, race-neutral considerations drove the Legislature's decisions; racial targets did not. ... No party challenged or presented evidence which would support a claim that any of the districts in the Legislature's maps were racially motivated. In addition, no evidence was presented in the record that could overcome the presumption of good faith or show that any district lines in the Legislature's maps, including those districts with high BVAP, were "unexplainable on grounds other than race." The Governor and BLOC argue that the Legislature's maps violate the VRA by having one assembly district at 45.8% BVAP and another at 71.5% BVAP. However, neither the Governor nor BLOC cite authority standing for the position that, using race-neutral redistricting criteria, having low or high percentages of black voters in a given district on its own violates the VRA. ... The Governor and BLOC also argue that the Legislature's 10th assembly district, which has 45.8% BVAP, does not provide effective democratic opportunity for black voters. Thus, the Governor and BLOC aver that the Legislature's maps include only five effective black assembly districts. However, assembly district 10 does not create a VRA violation because the Gingles preconditions are not satisfied – namely, the record does not demonstrate that black voters are usually denied their preferred candidate. In fact, the evidence demonstrates otherwise. ... The Governor and BLOC point to BLOC's analysis on a single election result, the 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary, to demonstrate that the 10th assembly district violates the VRA. We are unaware of a single case that has found the existence of a strong evidentiary record, applied the VRA, and satisfied strict scrutiny through consideration of a single result from an exogenous election in a party primary. ... Even so, under BLOC's own statistics, the black preferred candidate won in the Legislature's 10th assembly district by a comfortable margin. According to BLOC, the black preferred candidate, Mahlon Mitchell, won a plurality of the vote and beat the next strongest candidate, the Governor, 39% to 29%. This indicates that the Legislature's 10th assembly district supports black preferred candidates, not that white coalitions stymie black electoral opportunity in violation of the VRA. ... [T]he Legislature provides its own analysis on the 10th assembly district that contradicts BLOC's conclusions. The Legislature did not rely on one election, but instead considered the 2018 Democratic Lieutenant Gubernatorial Primary in addition to the 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. Not only did the Legislature find that the 10th assembly district selected the black-preferred candidate in the gubernatorial primary (as did BLOC), the Legislature also found that the 10th assembly district supported the black-preferred candidate in the lieutenant gubernatorial primary by a wide margin. Given this evidence, the Legislature concluded that this district would not usually exhibit white coalition voting blocking black-preferred candidates. In addition, CMS analyzed the Legislature's 10th assembly district by considering whether "the outcome in most general elections favors the Black candidate of choice" and whether "Mandela Barnes and Mahlon Mitchell [the black candidates of choice in the 2018 Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial and gubernatorial races] perform strongly in their respective 2018 Democratic primary elections." CMS concluded that the Legislature's 10th assembly district was "perfectly effective" for black voters. On this record, we cannot agree with the Governor and BLOC that the Legislature's race-neutral proposal would violate the VRA. ... *** Because the maps submitted by the Governor, Senator Bewley, BLOC, and CMS are eliminated for being racially motivated, we concentrate our review on the Legislature's maps. In maximum population deviation, the Legislature's maps perform exceptionally well. The Legislature's maps recognize the sizable population shifts, keep Wisconsin citizens in their existing districts and also achieve population equality across districts. The Legislature's maximum population deviation is .57% for the Senate and .76% for the Assembly. This is in line with deviations accepted by federal courts. *** The Legislature's maps comply with the Equal Protection Clause, along with all other applicable federal and state legal requirements. Further, the Legislature's maps exhibit minimal changes to the existing maps. Therefore, we adopt the state senate and assembly maps of the Legislature for the State of Wisconsin. Next: The dissent. Karofsky takes on the SCOW majority and the U.S. Supreme Court. Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: State of Wisconsin v. Daniel J. Van Linn Majority opinion: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (14 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler and Justices Patience Roggensack, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian Hagedorn, and Jill J. Karofsky Dissent: Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (11 pages)  Dallet The upshot After crashing his car, Daniel Van Linn was taken to the hospital, where two blood tests were performed: the first one by the hospital for diagnostic and treatment purposes; a later one at the direction of a sheriff's deputy for investigative purposes. Both blood tests revealed that Van Linn's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) was over the legal limit. The circuit court suppressed the results of the deputy's blood test, concluding that the deputy's blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because the deputy did not have a warrant. The State then subpoenaed the hospital for Van Linn's medical records, which included the hospital's diagnostic blood-test results. Van Linn argues that those results should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule because the State subpoenaed the hospital only after it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. The issue is whether hospital's blood-test results are nevertheless admissible under the independent-source doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule. We hold that they are, and therefore affirm the court of appeals. Background Around 2:00 a.m. one Sunday morning, the Oconto County Sheriff's Office responded to a call about a car accident on a rural road in the Town of Mountain. When a deputy arrived, he found Van Linn's car crashed into the back of a cabin. The subsequent investigation revealed that Van Linn was driving to his cabin when he thought he saw an oncoming car in his lane and swerved to avoid it. He veered off the road and into a ditch, where he hit a tree. He then drove back onto the road, crossing both lanes of traffic before continuing into a ditch on the other side of the road, over a hill, and through a field, eventually crashing into the back of someone's cabin. Ambulance personnel found Van Linn lying on the ground across the street. He had a bump and some blood on his forehead and his hands were bleeding. Van Linn claimed to know nothing about the accident and denied that he was driving. The deputy noted a "moderate odor of alcohol" coming from Van Linn, and Van Linn told the deputy that he had drank "two beers" earlier that evening. The deputy learned that because Van Linn had four prior OWI (operating while intoxicated) convictions, he was subject to a BAC limit of 0.02 and his driving privileges were revoked. Van Linn was taken to the hospital. At 3:55 a.m., hospital personnel performed a "diagnostic workup," which included drawing Van Linn's blood. The results of that blood test revealed that Van Linn's BAC was 0.226. Not long after, the deputy arrived at the hospital and, based on his investigation at the accident scene, arrested Van Linn for his fifth OWI. At the time of Van Linn's arrest, the deputy was unaware of the hospital's blood draw and its results. Following his arrest, Van Linn admitted that he had in fact been driving and that he was the one who called the police to report the crash. The deputy asked Van Linn to consent to a blood draw, which Van Linn refused. Nevertheless, at his lieutenant's direction and without a warrant, the deputy had Van Linn's blood drawn at approximately 4:15 a.m., about twenty minutes after the hospital had taken Van Linn's blood. A test of this second sample showed that Van Linn's BAC was 0.205. In the circuit court, Van Linn moved to suppress the results of the deputy's blood draw because the deputy did not have a warrant and no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The State argued that the deputy did not need a warrant because the natural dissipation of alcohol in Van Linn's bloodstream was an exigent circumstance. The circuit court granted Van Linn's motion, suppressing the results of the deputy's warrantless blood draw on the grounds that no exigent circumstances justified the deputy's failure to get a warrant. Three months later, the State asked the circuit court to issue a subpoena to the hospital for Van Linn's medical records, which included the results of the hospital's diagnostic blood test. The State submitted an accompanying affidavit asserting there was probable cause for the subpoena because the deputy smelled alcohol on Van Linn at the scene, Van Linn had a reduced BAC restriction, and Van Linn admitted he had been drinking before the accident. The affidavit referenced the deputy's blood draw and noted that testing of the sample showed that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. The subpoena issued notwithstanding Van Linn’s objection, and the hospital produced its records from testing Van Linn's blood. Van Linn moved to suppress the hospital's blood-test results, but the circuit court denied the motion. Van Linn then appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the hospital's blood test was an independent source of evidence of Van Linn's BAC. The guts The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." When the State obtains evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that evidence typically must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule can apply to both evidence discovered during an unlawful search or seizure and evidence discovered only because of what the police learned from the unlawful activity, also referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Not all Fourth Amendment violations, however, justify applying the exclusionary rule. Rather, the rule applies when excluding the unlawfully obtained evidence will "meaningfully deter" police misconduct such that interfering with the criminal justice system's truth-seeking objective is justified. Whenever the exclusionary rule applies, the scope of the remedy is limited to preventing the State from "profit[ing] from its illegal activity" without placing the State "in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied" absent its illegal conduct. It follows that excluding illegally obtained evidence "does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible," provided the State's knowledge of them is gained from a source unrelated to the State's illegal conduct. That idea is the foundation of the independent-source doctrine. The doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule in that it allows for the admissibility of evidence or information tainted by an illegal evidence-gathering activity when the State otherwise acquires the same information—or "rediscover[s]" it—by lawful means "in a fashion untainted" by that illegal activity. Subsequent lawful means, such as a subpoena, are "untainted" when the State can show that the illegal conduct neither "affected" the circuit court's decision to approve its subpoena request nor "prompted" the State's decision to seek a subpoena in the first place. The former question turns on "whether the [subpoena's supporting affidavit] contain[s] sufficient evidence of probable cause without the references to the tainted evidence." Van Linn concedes that although the supporting affidavit referenced his BAC as discovered by the deputy's unlawful blood draw, the affidavit establishes probable cause for the subpoena without that reference. Our analysis therefore focuses on the latter question of whether the State's decision to seek the subpoena was prompted by what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Van Linn argues that the State's decision to subpoena his medical records was "motivated specifically" by the knowledge it gained from the deputy's unlawful blood draw—that his BAC was over the legal limit. According to Van Linn, if the deputy had not unlawfully drawn Van Linn's blood, the State would not have known that the hospital's blood test would show he had a prohibited BAC and, therefore, "would have had no reason to seek a subpoena" for his medical records. Murray (v. United States), however, demonstrates that the independent- source doctrine can apply even though the State knew the hospital's blood test would show an unlawful BAC. . . . Murray teaches that the independent-source doctrine applies when the State has a separate reason to seek the challenged evidence apart from the knowledge it gains from an unlawful search. Here, the State had ample reasons to subpoena Van Linn's medical records for evidence of OWI, apart from what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. At the accident scene, the deputy found Van Linn's car crashed into the back of a cabin. His investigation revealed that Van Linn had veered off the road and into a ditch, where he hit a tree. The deputy smelled an "intoxicant" on Van Linn, and Van Linn admitted to having had "a couple of beers." While Van Linn was en route to the hospital, the deputy also learned that Van Linn had a reduced BAC restriction of 0.02. Moreover, the deputy arrested Van Linn for OWI prior to conducting the unlawful blood draw. . . . (T)he testing results of the deputy's unlawful blood draw "only served to confirm [the State's] prior suspicions": that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. Stated differently, the State's decision to subpoena Van Linn's medical records was not prompted by what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Granted, the State did not subpoena Van Linn's medical records until after the circuit court suppressed the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Van Linn argues that the State's subpoena is therefore the "direct result" of the deputy's unlawful conduct because, but for that conduct, there would have been nothing for the circuit court to suppress. And but for the circuit court's suppression decision, the State would not have subpoenaed the hospital. We hold that, despite the timing of the State's subpoena request, suppression is not justified for two reasons. First, in the exclusionary-rule context, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the strict but-for causality Van Linn presses here. The "more apt question" for whether the exclusionary rule applies is: did the State "exploit[]" the deputy's unlawful conduct? In this case, the State did not exploit the deputy's illegal conduct because, as explained above, the State had reasonable grounds to suspect Van Linn of OWI prior to anyone drawing his blood. Additionally, the blood-test evidence contained in Van Linn's medical records is "untainted" by the deputy's unlawful conduct because the hospital drew Van Linn's blood for its own diagnostic and treatment purposes, not at the direction of law enforcement. Second, suppressing the hospital's blood-test results would not further the purpose of the exclusionary rule, which is to deter police misconduct. The circuit court's suppression of the deputy's warrantless blood draw remedied the police misconduct in this case. Suppressing the hospital's diagnostic blood test, however, would have no further deterrent effect because it involved no police conduct at all, let alone misconduct. Moreover, suppressing the hospital's blood test runs counter to the exclusionary rule because it would put the State in a worse position than it occupied absent the deputy's unlawful conduct.  A.W. Bradley The dissent Law enforcement drew Daniel Van Linn's blood without a warrant. He refused to give consent for the blood draw, but an officer nevertheless proceeded to extract his blood. No exception to the warrant requirement permitted such a search. After the circuit court suppressed the fruits of the State's unconstitutional foray, the State waited three months to try an end run around the Fourth Amendment and the circuit court's suppression ruling. It subpoenaed hospital records containing the information that the circuit court had earlier suppressed—Van Linn's blood alcohol content. Providing the State with an insurance policy in the event of an unconstitutional search, the majority tells law enforcement not to worry. The majority's message is: "If you violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights and the resulting evidence is suppressed, there will be no consequences because you can still gain the information through other means." In contrast, my message is: "Get a warrant." This entire appeal would not exist if law enforcement had simply sought a warrant in the first place. This court should not promote a search first and warrant later approach. And it certainly should not be condoning an approach that undermines the essence of the exclusionary rule, which is to prevent—not to repair. In giving its imprimatur to the State's tactic, the majority justifies its determination by invoking the independent source doctrine. Its rationale rests on two assertions: (1) that the State did not "exploit" the illegal search because it had "reasonable grounds" to suspect Van Linn of OWI before either law enforcement or medical personnel drew his blood; and (2) that disallowing the subpoena would have no effect on police misconduct. The first of these rationales answers the wrong question, obscuring the true inquiry of whether the unconstitutional search "prompted" the subpoena. And the second insulates law enforcement from the consequences of its unconstitutional actions. In doing so, the majority ignores that the consequence of its decision is to give a do-over to law enforcement in the event evidence gained through an unconstitutional search is suppressed. Because the majority obscures the constitutional inquiry, erroneously concludes that suppression of the hospital sample would have no effect on police misconduct, and turns the exclusionary rule on its head by creating a perverse incentive for law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches, I respectfully dissent. *** Despite the perverse incentive created by the majority opinion, the next officer to confront this situation should still just get a warrant. Indeed, the entire argument before this court would have been avoided from the get-go if law enforcement would have simply sought a warrant for the first draw of Van Linn’s blood. Judicial efficiency appreciates it and the constitution demands it.
Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: State v. Octavia W. Dodson Majority: Justice Jill J. Karofsky (10 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca F. Dallet, and Brian Hagedorn. Concurrence: Hagedorn (3 pages). Dissent: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (29 pages), joined by Justices Patience D. Roggensack and Annette K. Ziegler. Karofsky The upshot Octavia W. Dodson seeks resentencing for his second-degree intentional homicide conviction, alleging that the Milwaukee County Circuit Court relied on an improper sentencing factor in mentioning his lawful gun ownership and conceal-carry (CCW) permit. He contends such reliance contravenes his rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The circuit court denied Dodson's postconviction motion for resentencing, and the court of appeals affirmed that denial. We likewise affirm. Dodson fails to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court actually relied on an improper factor. Background Roughly four minutes before the homicide, Dodson was involved in a minor car accident during which an unidentified driver – in what Dodson believed to be a Buick – collided with the rear of Dodson's car. Dodson exited his vehicle and as he walked toward the back of his car, the other driver reversed the Buick several car-lengths and sped off. Meanwhile, Dodson unholstered his pistol, which he lawfully owned and for which he had a valid CCW permit. Dodson returned to his car and attempted to follow the Buick but lost sight of it. While searching for the Buick, Dodson swapped out his pistol's 10-round magazine for an extended 17-round magazine. Soon thereafter Dodson spotted a second Buick driven by the victim, Deshun Freeman. Believing it to be the car that rear-ended him, Dodson pursued Freeman's vehicle. When Freeman pulled over to the side of the road, Dodson parked his car about two car-lengths behind. According to Dodson, Freeman began "fumbling around" by his driver-side door before starting to walk toward Dodson. At that point, Dodson exited his vehicle and stood between the open driver-side door and his car. Dodson told officers that Freeman, with his hands either in his pockets or underneath his sweatshirt, began running toward Dodson, and shouted an obscenity at him. Dodson responded by firing six rounds from his pistol, three of which hit and killed Freeman. After witnessing Freeman's body fall to the ground, Dodson fled the scene. Hours later, Dodson surrendered himself to the police. The investigation revealed that Freeman had not been armed and that Freeman's vehicle did not match Dodson's description of the Buick from the earlier collision. Dodson pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional homicide, citing unnecessary defensive force as the mitigating circumstance and then-Circuit Judge M. Joseph Donald sentenced him to 14 years in prison followed by six years of extended supervision. Donald, noting Dodson's lack of a criminal record, made the following comments: "In reviewing this case, I have to say I am completely baffled as to why this happened. And I don't think that there is any rational way of trying to explain it. I can tell you this, Mr. Dodson, that in my experience as a judge, I have seen over time how individuals when they are possessing a firearm, how that in some way changes them. It changes how they view the world. It changes how they react and respond to people. I know that this is only speculation on my part, but I do strongly feel that the day that you applied for that concealed carry permit and went out and purchased that firearm, and that extended magazine, whether your rational beliefs for possessing it, whether you felt the need to somehow arm yourself and protect yourself from essentially the crime that is going on in this community I think on that day set in motion this circumstance. It is clear to me, Mr. Dodson, that for whatever reason, and it appears that it is a distorted, misguided belief of the world that somehow Mr. Freeman was a threat that required you, in essence, to terminate his life. Makes no sense. ". . . [I]t is clear to me that you were operating under some misguided belief, some distorted view of the world that somehow [Deshun] Freeman was a threat to you when in reality it was nothing further from the truth." *** In a postconviction motion, Dodson argued that the circuit court's statements demonstrated an improper reliance on his gun ownership and CCW permit, in contravention of his Second Amendment rights. The postconviction court denied the motion, concluding that the challenged statements, in context, were not improper. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the sentencing court's statements demonstrated that Dodson was being punished not for exercising his Second Amendment rights but rather his "distorted, misguided belief" that he could unlawfully and lethally use his gun against the unarmed Freeman. Dodson appealed to the Supreme Court. The guts
A defendant challenging his or her sentence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the challenged factor is irrelevant or improper; and (2) the circuit court actually relied on that factor....A defendant will fall short of proving actual reliance if the transcript lacks clear and convincing evidence that the factor was the sole cause of a harsher sentence. A defendant will also fail to show actual reliance if a reference to a challenged factor bears "a reasonable nexus" to a relevant, proper factor. Dodson isolates two statements that he contends offer clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court actually relied on an improper factor. First, Dodson contends that the circuit court improperly grafted a negative predisposition against all gun owners onto him when it said that it has seen how "possessing a firearm" "changes how they view the world" and "react and respond to people." Second, Dodson argues that the circuit court improperly relied on his gun ownership and CCW permit when it stated that "the day that you applied for that concealed carry permit and went out and purchased that firearm, and that extended magazine . . . set in motion this circumstance." We disagree. Dodson's arguments ignore critical context that, when read alongside the challenged statements, demonstrate the circuit court neither exhibited an improper predisposition against all gun owners nor actually relied on Dodson's gun ownership or CCW permit as part of his sentence. *** The circuit court's challenged statements arise in the context of its struggle to reconcile Dodson's clean criminal record and the innocuous circumstances leading up to the shooting, with an element of Dodson's second-degree homicide charge: his use of unnecessary defensive force. That is, the circuit court was trying to understand what caused this "model citizen" to harbor the unreasonable belief that either he "was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" or the lethal "force used was necessary to defend [himself]." This inquiry into how the particular facts establish an element of the offense is a necessary step in assessing the gravity of that offense – a proper sentencing factor. The circuit court then leaned on its judicial experience to hypothesize about why Dodson used unnecessary defensive force. The circuit court explained that in its "experience as a judge," it observed a recurring pattern wherein "possessing a firearm" changes how some criminal defendants "view the world" and "react and respond to people." From the circuit court's standpoint that pattern was apparent here: Dodson reacted unreasonably to Freeman because Dodson was armed with a gun. That is, absent the gun, Dodson would not have used lethal force. But Dodson did have the gun and a "distorted, misguided belief of the world that somehow Mr. Freeman was a threat," which as Freeman's murder tragically demonstrates, created a danger to the community – another proper sentencing consideration. Having established the full context in which the circuit court made the challenged statements, we next assess the statements in that context. Dodson first challenges the circuit court's comment about gun possession changing how some criminal defendants both "view the world" and "react and respond to people" as an improper predisposition against all gun owners or CCW permit holders. Dodson is incorrect. The transcript read as a whole shows that the circuit court properly cabined any "general predisposition[]" about "when a certain type of sentence is appropriate" both to its "criminal sentencing experience" and to the "particular circumstances" of Dodson's criminal conduct. Indeed, nothing in the transcript indicates that this predisposition was "so specific or rigid as to ignore" Dodson's "distorted, misguided" conduct here, which included:
 Grassl Bradley By Gretchen Schuldt
Three state Supreme Court justices have called for the court to reconsider whether the Legislature can adopt political maps through a joint resolution, bypassing involvement by the governor. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley was joined by Justices Annette K. Ziegler and Patience D. Roggensack in her dissent to the court's 4-3 decision selecting redistricting maps submitted by Gov. Tony Evers. The justices said the court should revisit its 1964 decision in State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, which upheld the governor's ability to approve or veto maps proposed by the Legislature. "While Zimmerman has been precedent for many years, it is the only case to address that issue, and this court has never had the opportunity to revisit it because every redistricting case that followed was heard exclusively in federal court. Unlike a fine wine, precedent does not necessarily get better with age," she said. "The foundation for Zimmerman is weak," Bradley wrote. "The text of Article IV, Section 3 (of the state constitution) does not contemplate a role for the Governor in the drawing of assembly and senate maps....While the Legislature's prerogative to enact laws is subject to a gubernatorial veto, the constitution does not describe the Legislature's duty to redistrict as lawmaking, suggesting the constitution denies the Governor a role in the process." In a footnote, she added, "Perhaps this court should consider, as a remedy, allowing the Legislature to redistrict by joint resolution. Unless a court adopts the Governor's maps as it did in this case, a court-ordered remedy ultimately denies the Governor control anyway. Zimmerman does not prohibit the Legislature from implementing redistricting plans by joint resolution in the event of an impasse." Sachin Chheda, director of the Fair Elections Project, which opposes partisan gerrymandering, said the justices' proposal was an effort to "pervert the law in order to advance the Republican cause." “It’s unfortunate that the partisan, right-wing judicial activists on the Supreme Court continue in their efforts to ignore the law, the constitution, and established precedent," he said. "What folks want is nonpartisan, independent judges, and not partisan activists. There’s no way citizens will stand for this kind of manipulation of our political process.” If the court were to reject Zimmerman, it could also remove redistricting from court review and open the door to additional powers reserved for the legislature alone, without being subject to gubernatorial veto or involvement. That is because, as the Zimmerman court noted but Bradley did not mention, the state constitution refers several times to legislative authority without specifically describing a role for the governor: Sec. 1, art. III, Wis. Const. "Every person, of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the state for one year next preceding any election, and in the election district where he offers to vote such time as may be prescribed by the legislature, not exceeding thirty days, shall be deemed a qualified elector at such election: . . ." Sec. 23, art. IV, Wis. Const. "The legislature shall establish but one system of town and county government, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable." Sec. 26, art. IV, Wis. Const. "The legislature shall never grant any extra compensation . . . " Sec. 7, art. VII, Wis. Const. ". . . the legislature may, from time to time, authorize additional circuit judges to be chosen. . . ." Sec. 5, art. VIII, Wis. Const. "The legislature shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses of the state for each year; and whenever the expenses of any year shall exceed the income, the legislature shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year, sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency as well as the estimated expenses of such ensuing year." (Emphases in Zimmerman decision.) Bradley's suggestion that the Legislature alone has the authority to enact legislative maps echoes the "independent legislature" idea being pushed in conservative legal circles. Under that theory, only state legislatures can regulate congressional elections, including redistricting. The theory, if enacted, would eliminate any role for governors or judges. The theory has been rejected by courts for more than 100 years, but four U.S. Supreme Court justices have signaled they may buy into it. Wisconsin Supreme Court takes appeal of WJI's legal challenge to the Marsy's Law amendment2/17/2022 The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the appeal in Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s challenge to the victims’ rights constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the appeal includes consideration of all issues in the case. The parties will be notified of an oral argument date “in due course,” said the court’s order. WJI and four individual plaintiffs won the case at the trial-court level. Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank D. Remington declared that the ballot question used in April 2020 to pass what is known as the Marsy’s Law amendment failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject. Remington enjoined implementation of the amendment but stayed his injunction pending appeal. Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed the judgment to District III of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, located in Wausau. Kaul appealed on behalf of himself, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its chair, and Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette. The appeal was fully briefed in District III in April 2021 but the appeals court judges asked the Supreme Court to take the case (skipping a court of appeals decision) because WJI’s challenge to the constitutional amendment involves “significant questions” the answers to which “will have a sweeping effect on our criminal justice institutions and those operating within them.” Thursday’s Supreme Court order allows the parties to submit new briefs or to stand on the briefs already filed. Any new briefing is scheduled to finish by mid-April 2022. Attorney Dennis Grzezinski, representing the plaintiffs, responded to the certification by saying that the plaintiffs “look forward to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's review of the Dane County Circuit Court's well-reasoned and thorough decision protecting the right of all Wisconsin voters to be presented with adequate ballot questions when they are faced with voting on proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution. Judge Remington properly found that the ballot question regarding the Marsy's Law amendments was legally inadequate — more than one ballot question was needed, and the single question on the ballot misled and misstated how the amendments changed our Constitution.” After learning of the Supreme Court order WJI President Craig Johnson, also an individual plaintiff in the case, remarked “we've argued since the beginning that voters were not informed of the far-reaching effects this law would have on the justice system. We've now seen the chaos and confusion that has resulted. We look forward to making the case to the Supreme Court that the referendum failed to fully and fairly inform the voters what they were voting on." "We look forward to making the case to the Supreme Court that the referendum failed to fully and fairly inform the voters what they were voting on." Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. Majority opinion: Justice Annette K. Ziegler (30 pages), for a unanimous court. Concurrence: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (6 pages), joined by Justices Brian Hagedorn and Jill J. Karofsky.  Ziegler The Upshot In Wisconsin, a foreign country's law must be proven before a circuit court as a question of fact. We reaffirm this principle and decline the Hennessys' invitation to consider foreign law de novo. Upon a review of the record, the court cannot conclude that the circuit court's interpretation of Mexican law was clearly erroneous. Further, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by choosing to recognize the Mexican judgment in Wisconsin. Thus, the court of appeals is affirmed, and Wells Fargo's judgment against the Hennessys was properly domesticated. Background The Hennessys (Daniel and Jane) took out a loan of $7.5 million owed to Wells Fargo to build a condominium in San Jose del Cabo, Mexico. As part of the transaction, the parties signed three separate agreements. They executed a construction loan agreement, a promissory note, and an addendum to the note. These documents are governed by Wisconsin law and are written in English. In addition, the parties entered into a trust agreement. The trust held the property underlying the transaction as collateral in case of the Hennessys' default. Mexican law governs the trust agreement, which is written in Spanish. The agreements are closely interlinked and reference each other. For instance, the loan agreement stated that the security is "granted . . . under the Guaranteed Trust Agreement." The trust agreement, for its part, stated that the Hennessys must "comply with all obligations [they] assumed under the Loan Documents," and, in the case of default, the Hennessys were obligated to "immediately pay any and all amounts [they] owe[] under the Loan Documents." The Hennessys defaulted under the agreements, and in May 2012, Wells Fargo initiated a foreclosure action in Mexico.... In March 2014, the Mexican district court issued a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo ("the Mexican judgment"), and both parties appealed the decision. In October 2014, an appellate court, the Third Unitary Court of Mexico ("the Mexican appellate court"), affirmed in part the Mexican district court's decision and awarded a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. The Mexican appellate court amended the judgment issued by the district court. The appellate court said the Hennessys owed $7.5 million, plus interest and costs. Wells Fargo subsequently pursued an action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court to allow enforcement of the Mexican court decision. [T]he circuit court issued a written decision holding that the Mexican judgment was valid and could be enforced against the Hennessys personally. The circuit court reasoned that the Mexican judgment mandated that the Hennessys either pay the amounts owed to Wells Fargo or surrender the property as collateral. Under Mexican law, if the Hennessys failed to pay Wells Fargo, the bank could recover any deficiency remaining after the collateral was sold, and, by seeking a deficiency, Wells Fargo was enforcing the Mexican judgment. The court later ruled that Wells Fargo was entitled to recognition of the Mexican judgment. The Hennessys also lost in the Court of Appeals. The guts The Hennessys ask this court to alter its current standard for reviewing questions of a foreign country's law. In addition, the Hennessys seek reversal of the circuit court and court of appeals based upon their interpretations of the Mexican judgment and on international comity (the recognition one country gives to another country's laws and judgments.) We will first address the Hennessys' arguments on the proper standard of review. For centuries, the common law established that, unlike the laws of the domestic jurisdiction, a foreign country's laws must be pleaded and proven as facts.... Even though Wisconsin's standard of review has been long established, the standard has been reaffirmed by this court on numerous occasions, and Wisconsin's statutory notice provisions on foreign law have not been changed, the Hennessys ask that the court resolve issues of foreign countries' laws as questions of law. (A question of law involves the interpretation of principles that might be relevant in other cases; a question of fact requires interpretation of circumstances of the particular case.) Whether we treat this issue solely as a matter of stare decisis, statutory interpretation, or both, we decline to do so.... As was true in centuries past, applying a wholly independent standard of review to a foreign country's jurisprudence can create substantial difficulties for courts, and having a question of fact standard can relieve the pressure placed on the judicial system. The standard places the burden on the parties to present what evidence and expert testimony they believe are relevant on the issue of foreign law, and limits appellate review to clearly erroneous interpretations. The process may serve to facilitate efficient and effective resolution of foreign law disputes. These disputes may otherwise consume court resources without consequent development of Wisconsin law. Nonetheless, the Hennessys cite policy rationales in support of their position. They argue that recrafting issues of a foreign country's laws as questions of law would allow courts to exercise independent judgment, and it would give courts the opportunity to fully analyze the substance of foreign law.... The Hennessys fail to cite a single case where litigants, under the question of fact standard, were inhibited from presenting to the court a full and accurate body of a foreign country's law. Although the Hennessys disagree with the circuit court's findings in this case, there is no indication that the record was incomplete or somehow inadequate.... *** The Hennessys argue that the circuit court incorrectly interpreted Mexican law to allow recovery against them personally under the Mexican judgment. In addition, the Hennessys claim that the circuit court misapplied the doctrine of comity. Wells Fargo disputes both these assertions. It argues that the circuit court accurately interpreted Mexican law and properly applied its discretion to domesticate the Mexican judgment. We will address the two issues in turn.... [W]e affirm the circuit court's interpretation of Mexican law. The circuit court properly determined that the Mexican judgment allowed Wells Fargo to collect a money judgment from the Hennessys personally and seek any deficiency after foreclosure on the property is complete.... The Hennessys argue that the circuit court should not have domesticated the Mexican judgment because it was insufficiently specific as to the amounts the Hennessys owed. They argue that the judgment does not contain a "sum certain" and leaves open additional calculations of deficiencies, interest, fees, and expenses owed to Wells Fargo. Thus, according to the Hennessys, the Mexican judgment is not final.... Upon a review of the record, this court cannot conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in domesticating the Mexican judgment. The circuit court accurately examined the facts, recognized the applicability of the comity doctrine, "us[ed] a demonstrative rational process" in applying the doctrine, and came to a reasonable conclusion. We affirm the circuit court's judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. Concurrence:  Dallet I join the majority opinion but write separately only because I would focus on Wis. Stat. § 902.02(5), which requires Wisconsin courts to treat foreign countries' laws as questions of fact that must be proven to the circuit court. Therefore, I respectfully concur....
Because Wis. Stat. § 902.02(5) requires foreign countries' laws be treated as questions of fact, any change to that standard must come through legislation.... Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc. Majority: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (24 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Brian Hagedorn and joined in large part by Justice Jill J. Karofsky. Concurrence: Karofsky (12 pages). Dissent: Justice Patience D. Roggensack (16 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Annette K. Ziegler. Dallet The Upshot We...hold that "dwelling used by the customer as a residence" includes a garage attached to the residential building in which the customer lives....We hold that claims of unconscionability are available only in "actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor to enforce rights arising from consumer credit transactions" and that a non-judicial repossession like the one Defendants performed in this case is not such an action or other proceeding. As a result, Duncan's unconscionability claim must be dismissed. Background Danelle Duncan left her car in her parking spot in the garage on the ground floor of her apartment building. When she returned a short time later, the car was gone. She later learned that Defendants – Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and Greg Strandlie –had entered the garage without her consent and repossessed the car. Duncan alleges that Defendants violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act by "[e]ntering a dwelling used by the customer as a residence except at the voluntary request of a customer" during the repossession. Duncan bought her car from a dealership and financed the purchase with a loan. The loan, which created a security interest in the car, was later assigned to Wells Fargo Bank. After Duncan defaulted on the loan, the Wisconsin Consumer Act provided the bank with two ways to take possession of the car. It could either obtain a judgment for return of the car by filing a replevin action or follow the statutory process for a nonjudicial repossession. Wells Fargo pursued the latter option and hired Asset Recovery Specialists, owned by Greg Strandlie, to repossess Duncan's car. At that time, Duncan lived in a multi-story, multiunit apartment building. The ground floor of the building is made up entirely of parking for residents and includes at least 56 parking spaces. Duncan leased a parking space in the garage under an agreement separate from her apartment lease. To access the residential floors and apartments from the garage, or to enter the garage on foot from the outside, residents must use keys. To drive into the garage, residents must use a garage door opener. When Strandlie and one of his employees arrived to repossess Duncan's car, however, they found the garage door open. They went in, located Duncan's car, and towed it away. Neither Strandlie nor the employee interacted with Duncan at the time. A maintenance worker was in the garage at the time of the repossession and did not object. Duncan filed this case in circuit court alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated Wis. Stat. § 425.206(2)(b) when they entered the parking garage to repossess her car and that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107(1). The guts To determine whether the repossession was proper, we must therefore answer a single question: Did Defendants enter "a dwelling used by [Duncan] as a residence" when they repossessed her car from the first-floor parking garage of her apartment building?.... Although "dwelling" is undefined in the Wisconsin Consumer Act, it is a common word and the parties generally agree on its ordinary, dictionary definition. "Dwelling" typically refers to "a building or other shelter in which people live." In other words, a dwelling is a building in which at least one person lives. That definition is consistent with the use of "dwelling" elsewhere in the statutes at the time the Wisconsin Consumer Act was adopted in 1971. The word "dwelling" appears twice in the Act and was defined in a subsequent administrative rule. That rule specifies that..."dwelling" includes "any garage, shed, barn or other building on the premises whether attached or unattached...." Based on that definition, Duncan's "dwelling" includes the parking garage, because it is located in the building in which she lives. The remaining question then is whether the phrase "used by the customer as a residence" nevertheless excludes the garage. Despite the parties' general agreement on the common meaning of "dwelling," they offer competing readings of the phrase "used by the customer as a residence." Defendants assert that a "residence" is the place where a person "actually lives." They conclude that "used by the customer as a residence" limits "dwelling" to only the parts of the building that are also "integral parts" of a residence; for example, the areas in which a person might sleep, eat, cook, or shower. Because Duncan did not sleep, eat, cook, or shower in the garage, Defendants claim that they could lawfully enter the garage because it was not used by Duncan as a residence. In contrast, Duncan suggests that "used by the customer as a residence" simply distinguishes her particular dwelling from all other dwellings. She therefore acknowledges that Defendants would not have violated (the law) if they had repossessed her car from the parking garage of a different apartment building, or while it was parked in a friend's open garage. We agree with Duncan's interpretation and conclude that "used by the customer as a residence" distinguishes the customer's dwelling from all other dwellings.... *** We turn next to Duncan's claim of unconscionability pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 425.107(1). We begin with the language of the statute: "With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds that any aspect of the transaction, any conduct directed against the customer by a party to the transaction, or any result of the transaction is unconscionable, the court shall, in addition to the remedy and penalty authorized in sub. (5), either refuse to enforce the transaction against the customer, or so limit the application of any unconscionable aspect or conduct to avoid any unconscionable result." The statute enumerates a number of different factors the court may consider pertinent to determining whether a transaction, conduct directed against the customer, or the result of the transaction are unconscionable... [U]pon a finding of unconscionability a customer may recover statutory and actual damages.... We agree with the federal courts that the law bars a customer from bringing a claim of unconscionability...except in response to "actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor."... [W]e conclude that a nonjudicial repossession...is not one of the "actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor" contemplated.... Karofsky Concurrence: I agree that Defendants violated Wis. Stat. § 425.206(2)(b) by entering Duncan's "dwelling" and concur in the court's ultimate mandate. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that a customer can never raise unconscionability as a defense to a non-judicial repossession. Because the applicable statutes plainly permit an unconscionability defense, I respectfully concur. *** The unconscionability defense codified in Wis. Stat. § 425.107 entitles a customer to additional relief "if the court as a matter of law finds that any aspect of the transaction, any conduct directed against the customer by a party to the transaction, or any result of the transaction is unconscionable." I agree with my colleagues that this defense is subject to the scope provision (by law), and as such is only available in response "to actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor to enforce rights arising from consumer credit transactions" (emphasis added). I further agree that a non-judicial repossession is not an "action." We diverge, however, on whether a non-judicial repossession constitutes a "proceeding." "Proceeding" is neither specially defined nor technical and therefore carries its "common, ordinary, and accepted meaning."... The Oxford English Dictionary's leading "Law" definition for "proceeding" broadly includes "[a] legal action or process." That breadth is mirrored in another dictionary's "proceeding" definition: "A course of action; a procedure." (American Heritage Dictionary) These broad dictionary definitions match comprehensive judicial definitions of "proceeding." Several courts have recited the Words and Phrases definition that "proceeding" is "a very comprehensive term" generally meaning "a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right." *** Taken together, the dictionary and judicial definitions of "proceeding" as well as that word's usage in common parlance converge on one, comprehensive common, ordinary, and accepted meaning: a legally prescribed process for enforcing a legal right. *** Applying the common, ordinary, and accepted meaning of "proceeding," I conclude that "other proceedings" includes a non-judicial repossession. A non-judicial repossession is a legally prescribed process for enforcing a legal right. The statute prescribes the initiating notice, the 15-day wait period, and the prohibitions against both "breach[ing] of the peace" and entering "a dwelling used by the customer as a residence." It matters not that the legislature made a policy decision to cut out the expense and time of litigation. Nothing in that policy choice indicates a simultaneous desire to foreclose a customer in Duncan's position from even requesting judicial scrutiny of unconscionable creditor conduct. Quite the opposite. The legislature directs us to "liberally construe[] and appl[y]" the entire Act to "protect customers against . . . unconscionable practices by merchants." Put simply, the statutorily prescribed non-judicial repossession process to enforce a creditor's right to collateral plainly constitutes an "other proceeding[] brought by a creditor to enforce rights arising from [a] consumer credit transaction[]" under (the law.) Before concluding that Duncan can bring her unconscionability claim here, I address one last wrinkle. At common law, unconscionability claims arose defensively. That is precisely the posture Duncan is in here, albeit not in the traditional sense. Duncan raises unconscionability as a defense to Defendants enforcing their right to repossess her car. Had that repossession commenced via a replevin action, Defendants would have filed a complaint and Duncan would raise unconscionability in her answer or some post-judgment filing if the unconscionable conduct occurred during or after the repossession. But a non-judicial repossession dispenses with these traditional pleadings. Therefore, Duncan can raise unconscionability only in her own complaint.... I conclude that Duncan could raise an unconscionability defense to Defendants' non-judicial repossession. Here, however, her allegations do not as a matter of law rise to the level of unconscionable. Therefore, I concur in the court's ultimate mandate and join all but (five paragraphs) of the majority/lead opinion.  Roggensack Dissent
The majority opinion follows the errant lead of the court of appeals. Instead of interpreting "dwelling" within the structure of the statute in which it appears, e.g., "used by the customer as a residence," and instead of relying on Danelle Duncan's own statements that she never lived or resided in the apartment building's garage, the majority opinion ignores a plain-meaning analysis of (the law). Rather, it patches together a hodgepodge of theories in order to affirm the court of appeals. Because I conclude that the plain meaning of (the law) does not apply to the apartment building's garage, which Duncan shared with many others and has said in two court proceedings that she has never lived or resided in, I would reverse the court of appeals and affirm the summary judgment granted by the circuit court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. After her car was repossessed, Duncan sued the towing company, its owner, and the Wells Fargo. As part of its proceedings, the district court found there "are no living quarters, places to sleep, cook, eat, watch television, use a restroom or bathe or shower in the garage area, [and that] Duncan admits that she has never lived or resided in the garage." The court made various other findings relative to her federal claim and then granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part. It dismissed her federal claim and any portion of her state claims against Wells Fargo that was based on alleged unlawful retention of Duncan's personal property. Duncan sued in circuit court and lost. She appealed and won. *** Although, "dwelling" is not defined in regard to portions of statutes that set out provisions that relate to Wisconsin consumer transactions, I note that findings of the earlier trial courts who considered this dispute provide the factual context in which we interpret "dwelling," as that term appears in § 425.206(2)(b). For example, the circuit court found that the apartment building's garage contained spaces for more than 50 cars, with no tenant having a right to exclude others, which the circuit court also found was in contrast to single-family homes where there is a right to exclusive control over the garage. Duncan agreed that she did not have the right to exclude others from the apartment building's garage. Therefore, she could not bring suit for criminal trespass to dwellings or for trespass to land which she tried to do before filing in federal district court. It is undisputed that Duncan does not sleep in the garage. The district court found that there "are no living quarters, places to sleep, cook, eat, watch television, use a restroom or bathe or shower in the garage area, [and that] Duncan admits that she has never lived or resided in the garage.... [I]n order to fit within the structure of (the law) the apartment building's garage must be the place where Duncan actually lives – where she resides. She has admitted that she never lived or resided in the apartment building's garage, and the district court and the circuit court both so found. Instead, she rented a parking space in a garage shared by other residents and maintained by a third-party apartment owner. Therefore, based on the plain meaning of the statute that the legislature enacted, and undisputed material facts, I conclude that the apartment building's garage where Duncan parked her car is not a "dwelling" within the meaning of § 425.206(2)(b). *** The court of appeals' decision avoids a plain-meaning interpretation of (the statute) to seek a different result than a plain-meaning interpretation will permit. The majority opinion's use of (administrative code) is less direct than that of the court of appeals, but nevertheless it employs (administrative code) to support its analysis. Furthermore, the majority opinion's hodgepodge of definitions totally ignores the structure of § 425.206(2)(b) which limits "dwelling" according to how the customer uses that space. Again, it appears the majority opinion did so...to obtain a result that the plain meaning of the words the legislature enacted will not permit.  By Gretchen Schuldt
A proposed Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that would ban routine juvenile shackling in court has broad support and would bring consistency to shackling practices across the state, according to the Wisconsin Justice Initiative. “It should provide the necessary clarity that decisions about courtroom security belong to the judiciary and provides a humane framework for those decisions,” WJI President Craig Johnson said in comments submitted to the court. “It has appropriate guidance for the judiciary as to when the presumption against shackling may be overcome, with specific and clear standards.” The Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on the petition at 9:30 a.m. Feb. 15 in the court’s hearing room in the State Capitol. Under the proposed new Supreme Court rule, children could not be restrained during a court proceeding unless a judge found one of the following:
Restraints use also would be limited to situations where there were no less restrictive alternatives "that will prevent flight or physical harm to the child or another person, including the presence of court personnel, law enforcement officers, or bailiffs," according to the petition. The rule would prohibit use of restraints "that are fixed to a wall, floor, or furniture," the petition says. More than a dozen commenters wrote in favor of the petition. No one submitted comments opposing it. The comment period closed Jan. 3. Submitting the petition were attorneys Diane R. Rondini and Eileen A. Hirsch, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Laura Crivello, Eau Claire County Circuit Judge Michael A. Schumacher, La Crosse County Circuit Judge Ramona A. Gonzalez, Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell, and Marathon County Circuit Judge Suzanne C. O'Neill. Commenters supporting the petition said shackling is humiliating and can do psychological harm to children. “Shackling children on a routine basis is dehumanizing,” wrote Kim Vercauteren, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference. Children appearing in court already have suffered trauma and psychological harm in many instances, she said. Shackling adds to the humiliation and degradation. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed
Copyright © 2021 Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc.
The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. does not endorse candidates for political office. The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. is a 501(c)3 organization.
The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. does not endorse candidates for political office. The Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc. is a 501(c)3 organization.